On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:12 PM roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - elsewhere in Go, when a name is defined, there is one clear construct >> that defines it, not an arbitrary place within a type expression. That's >> not the case in your proposal. >> > On the other hand, $/@ is not dissimilar to using the uppercase first letter to denote a "publicly" exposed name, that is, encoding a property into the name. > - I'm not keen on the @, $ syntax. It co-opts not just one but two new > symbols into the Go syntax, and I suspect that the merging of reference and > definition will make the resulting code hard to read. > I'd say that introducing special-purpose symbols instead of re-using the same undifferentiated constructs used elsewhere in the language just with a string qualifier like "type" added makes it easier to read, and not lose it in the sameness of declaring parameter lists and return types, etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAACdnTBokpa0Fdo22WvaNx3opkocBHRsMWxH-t6ESsNu5a3XcA%40mail.gmail.com.
